1.

0
I ntroduction and D escription of Plan Changes

1-1

Introduction and Description of Plan Changes

(A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)

1.0
I ntroduction and D escription of Plan Changes
1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this document is to consider and address: (i) the environmental impacts associated w ith the applicants proposed project; (ii) issues raised by the Planning Board and the public; (iii) project alternatives; and (iv) mitigation measures. The applicants proposed project calls for the construction of a 121 unit assisted living community w ith associated amenities and improvements. The proposed assisted living community w ill feature 121 bedrooms, w ith 168 beds in 105,000 s.f. Forty of those units w ill be in a separate, segregated memory care unit, w hich w ill be a restricted area and none of the residents w ill be permitted to drive. Of fundamental import, over 50% of the entire facility w ill be utilized for amenity space, such as dining halls, activity rooms, TV and movie rooms, etc. The residential area w ill be less than 58,000 s.f. so this community cannot be view ed as a 105,000 s.f. residential multi-family building. The use features low off-site impacts due, primarily, to the average entry age of 82 years old, w hich limits vehicular usage and overall traffic impacts; coupled w ith memory care residents inability to drive. The project is proposed for the property located at 30 South Broadw ay, w hich is in the M F zoning district. Currently, assisted living is not a permitted or specially permitted use in Irvington. Due to the unique nature of an assisted living use and its programmatic requirements, the applicant determined that the use should be permitted by special permit w ith bulk and area requirements that are appropriate for the use and consistent w ith the character of the area. A ccordingly, the applicant submitted a petition to the Village Board of Trustees requesting that the zoning code be amended to allow for such a use. Special permit uses possess characteristics of such unique and special forms that each specific use must be considered as an individual case. In this case, the existing and uniform bulk and area requirements for all special permit uses do not take into consideration the unique nature of an assisted living use or, for that matter, any of the other special permit uses. Additionally, the 1-2 Introduction and Description of Plan Changes (A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)

existing and uniform bulk and area requirement do not address the required site components necessary to comply with current fire safety standards, such as fire access lanes. By identifying fire access lanes as buildings, the developable lands are unfairly reduced as they result in little to no visual impact on the surrounding properties (i.e. there are no light and air impacts, which typically drive setbacks to property lines). Therefore, the applicant has proposed bulk and area restrictions that would be appropriate for an assisted living community. In reviewing the proposed zone text amendment, the Planning Board has considered not only the nature of the proposed use, which is akin to multi-family, but also the character of the neighborhood in which the use is being proposed, and particularly the adjacent multiple family community at 14 South Broadway, as well as its overall impacts on the community. With respect to the nature of the use, it is very similar to multi-family in that it is a building containing more than two dwelling units. The fact that the proposed assisted living community serves seniors (average age of 82) and provides daily living assistance to its residents, does not negate the fact that at its core the proposed project is a building with multiple dwelling units. There are several multi-family developments in close proximity to the project site, including the neighboring 14 South Broadway. Therefore, the proposed use is in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. While some members of the public have argued that the size and scale of the use is out of character with the surrounding neighborhood, the Planning Board had to look no further than the adjoining property at 14 South Broadway as an example of use with a similar size and scale. By way of comparison 14 South Broadway contains two multi-family buildings totaling approximately 80,000 s.f. on 2.33 acres (101,495 s.f.) while the proposed assisted living facility consists of approximately 105,000 s.f. above grade with an additional 25,000 s.f. below grade, consisting of parking and mechanicals. The subject 4.6 acre site is elevated, sited above Broadway and the adjoining properties to the south and west, and is at grade with 14 South Broadway to the north. Due to this natural setting, visual impacts are naturally mitigated. During the Draft EIS process, the essence of the comments focused on the size, mass, and visual impacts of the project. The redesign located the buildings in essentially the same area utilizing the same access point, entry road, existing house location, and settled the western and southern wings in virtually the same area. To address the concerns of the public, the buffer setbacks from Broadway and the Aqueduct were respected, except for emergency vehicle access, retaining walls and a small parking area, and the building height was reduced to 2 stories with a subterranean floor being utilized for a significant amount of amenity space. In addition, 37 of the 50 parking spaces were located underground and the existing house was replaced with a much more functional and efficient house that allows for the location of 8 residential units therein. This allows the design to break the mass of the western wing by providing for a 14 foot connector in the middle; a similar technique is utilized between the new entry facility and the memory care unit. The longest length of building visible at any one time is approximately 220 feet, with the angles and breaks addressing the massing. Finally, the new design allows for the proposed community to be framed by numerous existing trees in excess of 100 feet tall, when compared to the new buildings of 35 to 40 feet. See Exhibit 15 through Exhibit 29, which illustrate the proposed estate house, peak elevations, and views from surrounding areas. 1-3 Introduction and Description of Plan Changes (A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)

The buildings at 14 South Broadway are 4 stories (3 residential floors on top of at-grade parking garage) and are approximately 40 feet high. Both the number of stories and height exceed what is permitted in the Irvington code. Furthermore, the existing main house on the FEE site is noncompliant with the existing zoning regulations. For example it is more than 35 feet in height measured from the lowest adjacent elevation to the building and it is over 2.5 stories. The proposed assisted living building is 2-3 stories and approximately 43 feet high. In terms of coverage, 14 South Broadway has a total impervious area of approximately 59,475 s.f or 59%. The proposed assisted living project has a total impervious area of approximately 101,475 s.f. or 50%. Finally, the proposed project respects both the 125 foot Broadway buffer and the 50 foot Old Croton Aqueduct buffer. The proposed building is set back 131 feet from Broadway and 50 feet from the aqueduct. In contrast, 14 South Broadway respects neither buffer. The northern building at 14 South Broadway is 86 feet from Broadway and 41 feet from the Aqueduct, while the southern building is 93 feet from Broadway and 44 feet from the Aqueduct. Based on the foregoing, in the applicants opinion, the proposed project is in character with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of use and density.

1.2

Procedural Requirements Related to the Proposed Action as Modified in this FEIS

As indicated above, the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, NY is considering a proposal submitted by The Continuum Company (the applicant) for a zone text amendment to the existing MF Multi-Family zoning district to permit assisted living facilities as a Special Permit use in the Village and to provide bulk and parking requirements for this use. The proposed development will include 81 assisted living and 40 memory care units, along with off-street parking, loading, common open space areas, and extensive indoor amenities. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that was prepared for this proposal included a site plan for the development of the 121 units of assisted living and memory care on the site. As described more fully below, the proposed site plan and the proposed zoning amendment have been modified in this FEIS in response to comments received. The plan proposed in this FEIS places 25% of the program and most of the parking below grade. It increases the Old Croton Aqueduct and South Broadway setback areas and significantly reduces the building mass along South Broadway. There were two alternative plans presented in the DEIS. One plan showed the adaptive re-use of the existing estate house (the main building), which is located on the northern portion of the site. The existing estate house would be used as administrative space for the proposed assisted living development. A second plan showed a replacement building in the same location as the existing main building. In this FEIS, the applicants plan calls for demolition of the 55 foot tall existing main building, and its replacement with a 41 foot high building. The new building proposed in 1-4 Introduction and Description of Plan Changes (A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)

this FEIS has administrative space and 8 assisted living units, which would allow a reduction in the number of units in another portion of the site. A plan that adaptively re-uses the main building is also shown in this FEIS for comparison purposes. See Section 1.4 below for more detail on the plans with the replacement building. It is noted that the overall program has not changed from the DEIS to the FEIS, i.e., there would still be 121 units, 81 assisted living and 40 memory care. The assisted living would service residents that average 82 years of age and older. The Review Process The applicant filed a zoning petition for this development with the Irvington Village Board of Trustees on May 9, 2011. The Village Planning Board was designated to be the Lead Agency for review of the applicants proposal under provisions of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Planning Board issued a Positive Declaration, requiring the preparation of a DEIS, by the applicant. It held multiple scoping sessions, public meetings and public hearings on the DEIS. The applicant has met with abutting, concerned neighbors on numerous occasions. The DEIS was accepted as complete, pursuant to SEQRA, by the Planning Board February 1, 2012. Although not required under SEQRA, the Planning Board held a public hearing on March 7, 2012, which remained open at continued hearings on April 4th and May 2nd. Public comment was received at the hearings, and the record for written comments was extended until May 23, 2012. All verbal and written comments that were received are addressed in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Additional comments received since the close of the comment period include those provided by the Planning Board and our staff and consultants. There were also comments from the Environmental Conservation Board. These additional comments are addressed in this FEIS. Although the first two drafts of the FEIS were prepared by the applicant, the document has been thoroughly reviewed and revised by the Planning Board with the assistance technical advisors, including the Village Attorney, Building Inspector and the Village planning and engineering consultants, making certain that it reflects the position of the Planning Board, particularly with respect to impacts and mitigation, and as such the FEIS is the Planning Boards document as required by SEQRA. Upon completion of the review of the FEIS, with additional public input, the Planning Board will draft and adopt an Environmental Findings Statement that summarizes the SEQRA procedures that were followed, and addresses impacts, mitigation and alternatives considered in the DEIS and FEIS. The Planning Board will then make a recommendation to the Village Board of Trustees on the proposed zoning amendment. If it chooses to move forward with the proposal, the Village Board would then conduct its own public hearing prior to rendering a decision on the zoning amendment. Subsequent actions would include review of a Special Permit application, site plan approval, and review and approval of other permits required by the Village, the County and New York State.

1-5

Introduction and Description of Plan Changes

(A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)

1.3

Structure of the Final Environmental Impact Statement

The FEIS describes the propose project, as modified since the submission of the DEIS, and provides responses to all of the substantive comments on the DEIS. More specifically: This Chapter 1.0 provides a summary of SEQRA procedures and describes the proposed plan and its alternatives. It compares the plan proposed in the DEIS (the DEIS Plan) with the plan proposed in this FEIS (the FEIS plan). Chapter 1.0 also highlights the major issues raised during the review process and the applicants response to these issues. Chapter 2.0 of the FEIS provides an index of all comments received, which were confirmed by Village advisors as the full set of comments received by the Village during the review period. Chapter 3.0 of the FEIS provides the comments and the corresponding responses, grouped around chapters in the DEIS, e.g. land use and zoning, topography, cultural resources. The final chapter of the FEIS is a technical appendix, which includes the public hearings transcripts and copies of the letters, e-mails and other documents received during the public comment period on the DEIS. Also included in the technical appendices are the updated traffic and stormwater management reports and other documents.

1.4

The FEIS Site Plan

Several comments on the applicants DEIS focused on the proposed site plan and its visual impacts, particularly on South Broadway and the Old Croton Aqueduct, which border the project site on its east and west sides. The proposed DEIS plan was viewed by some commenter, as well as the Planning Board, as being too large for the site in terms of building and massing Although the FEIS plan maintains the same program as the DEIS plan, it responds to a number of comments on the DEIS plan relating to building mass, setbacks and views from South Broadway. A description of the FEIS plan follows. As indicated in Exhibit 1, the proposed development would be accessed from South Broadway by the existing driveway that serves the FEE building. The driveway will be widened and a sidewalk will be provided along its southern edge. Upon reaching the top of the hill, the driveway divides in either a southerly or northerly direction. The northerly leg, to the right, provides access to the loop road in front of the new main building. The access road then leads to the 40 unit memory care building and the below grade parking area with access along a portion of the Old Croton Aqueduct frontage. The below grade parking under the memory care building is a major positive change from the DEIS plan. The southerly or left leg of the access road runs parallel to South Broadway. It passes the sites central open space and leads to an enclosed loading area in the southern portion of the site, which is also a new feature in the FEIS Plan. The 81 assisted living units are located in buildings 1-6 Introduction and Description of Plan Changes (A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)

that abut the central open space, which has been expanded and opened up to Route 9 in the FEIS plan. In order, to achieve these changes, the applicant placed approximately 25% of the proposed program space and approximately 75% of the required parking below grade. The effect of this fundamental site plan change was to reduce building coverage from 22.2% of the site area in the DEIS plan, to 18.8% of the site area in the FEIS. This enabled the new plan to provide more open space at the critical edges of the site and to open up a meaningful central open space area that helped preserve some large on-site trees. Additionally the new plan reduced building heights by nearly one full story in each of the critical wings of the building. The memory care (dementia) building remains at two stories only. The Old Croton Aqueduct setback was increased from 35 feet in the DEIS plan to a 50 feet in the FEIS plan. This change provides sufficient room for landscape screening. The South Broadway setback was increased from 100 feet in the DEIS plan to 131 feet in the FEIS plan. Moreover, the South Broadway frontage has been significantly improved in the FEIS. The long three story over parking building in the DEIS plan has been eliminated. The view in the FEIS plan is that of an open space window that leads to a view of the projects proposed central landscaped lawn/terrace area, replacing the previous plans enclosed courtyard. See Exhibit 22, Open Space Area. The Aqueduct frontage includes the 2 story memory care building and a portion of a 3story assisted living building. The assisted living building along the Aqueduct was partially reduced to 2 stories because eight assisted living units have been located in the new main building. See Exhibits 24 and 25, Perspective Rendering Looking East From Aqueduct. The site plan drawings, elevations, photo-simulations and renderings provided at the end of this Chapter show the FEIS plan, including the proposed landscape plan.

1-7

Introduction and Description of Plan Changes

(A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)

Table 1-1 Continuum, Irvington, NY D EI S PLAN Program: Total Units M emory Care Units A ssisted Living Units Total Beds Floor Area: Parking: GFA above EL.164.5 Below Grade Surface Setbacks: N orth West (A queduct) South East (S. Broadw ay) Broadway Buffer (125 feet) Aqueduct Buffer (50 feet) Coverage: Building = 1.07 ac; 23% Pavement/ w alks/ courts = 0.83 ac; 17.9% 121 (40) (81) 168 105, 000 s.f. 23 26 78 (parking 15) 35 71 100 100 FEI S PLAN 121 (40) (81) 168 78,567 s.f. 39 11 45 50 63 131 131 feet, but the buffer area has the site access road, retaining w alls and parking w ithin it. 50 feet, but the buffer area has the emergency access road and the access to the below grade parking w ithin it. Building = 1.03 ac; 22.2% Drivew ay = 0.77 ac; 16.6% Outdoor Parking = 0.04 ac; 0.8% Walks/ Curbs = 0.18 ac; 4.0% Patios = 0.28 ac; 6.0% Walls = 0.05 ac; 1.1% Total I mpervious = 2.35 ac; 50.7% NA 41 2 stories, 28 feet 2 to 3 stories (40 feet)

34

Total I mpervious = 1.9 ac; 41% H eight: Existing M ain Building Proposed M ain Building M emory Care A ssisted Living 55 NA 2 stories, 30 feet 3 stories over exposed parking (56 feet)

1-8

Introduction and Description of Plan Changes

(A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)

Currently, the zoning code permits a maximum building length of 180 feet and there has been some discussion that this relates to safety concerns. There is nothing in the Zoning Code to indicate this as an issue, but even if it were, all applicable Building Code requirements will have to be satisfied and those requirements are based fundamentally on safety. We also note that the buildings at 14 South Broadway are each approximately 270 feet long. Accordingly, safety may not be the real issue. The issue associated with maximum building length deals with visual impacts. Toward that end, it is important to take into consideration all of the factors which deal with those visual impacts. It has been claimed that the entire main building is one long building with a length of approximately 550 feet. This claim ignores numerous significant factors associated with the visual impacts of the proposed building, including the following: 1. The actual building faade along the Croton Aqueduct is approximately 240 feet long; The angled portion of the building between the Croton Aqueduct side and the Station Road side is approximately 150 feet; The actual faade paralleling Station Road is approximately 160 feet; Ignoring the angled portion of the building, the greatest dimension that could be attributed along the Croton Aqueduct is approximately 360 feet; Similarly, and as noted above, ignoring the angle, the longest that the faade could be said to face Station Road is approximately 260 feet; Visual impacts are significantly attenuated due to the topography of the site; The project, as proposed, also provides for significant screening which will also mitigate visual impacts.

2.

3. 4.

5.

6. 7.

Notwithstanding the plan changes that reduce building mass and enhance the South Broadway and Aqueduct frontages, there are important similarities between the DEIS plan and the FEIS plan. Access to the site, for example, is still provided from the Broadway access that serves the existing FEE main building. As in the DEIS plan, the access drive in the FEIS plan will be widened and a sidewalk will be provided along its northerly edge. The driveway leads to the landscaped circular driveway that is adjacent to the propertys southerly lot line, across from the Irvington Estates cooperative housing development. Additional landscaping has been provided along that common lot line. In contrast, there are some important differences between the DEIS plan and the FEIS plan. For example, parking and loading are hidden from view in the FEIS plan, e.g., the below grade parking for 39 of the 50 required spaces is provided under the memory care building or otherwise enclosed, rather than in a surface lot as in the DEIS plan. However, access to that below building parking is provided from a driveway that runs parallel to the Aqueduct, within 1-9 Introduction and Description of Plan Changes (A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)

the Aqueduct buffer. The loading area in the FEIS plan is provided under the assisted living building in the southern portion of the site, moving it from the more visible location in the DEIS plan that was close to the main access drive for the facility In the DEIS plan, the existing main building was proposed to be reused, but, as previously noted, the FEIS plan proposes its demolition and replacement with a similar structure in the same location. The decision to demolish the existing main house was made based upon the buildings condition and physical layout, along with building code and fire/safety issues. The replacement structure would be similar to the existing main building; however, it would not be as tall (41 feet compared to 55 feet), and it would be designed so that additional assisted living units could be accommodated on its third floor. This allows for a reduction in upper floor units in a portion of the assisted living building along the Aqueduct. See Exhibit 25. With regard to the existing main building, the applicants documents indicate that the structure would not be eligible for historic designation by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The original structure has been significantly compromised with vinyl siding, building additions and replacement windows. The originally designed grounds have also been significantly altered with paved areas and a new ranch style building located on the southern portion of the site. Furthermore, re-use of the building raises code compliance issues, including the need for a fire wall and sprinklers throughout the structure. Handicapped access requirements to meet ADA standards would include an elevator, exterior stairway, and a rebuilt interior staircase; all of which would adversely affect the buildings character and appearance. However, the Planning Board recognizes that a number of local residents believe that the main building is of local historic value. The applicant has also indicated that the existing building is not well suited for senior housing in terms of accessibility (e.g., its front entry has a step up design that would require ramping and the interior spaces are not easily adaptable for individual apartment units with bathrooms). In contrast, the replacement building would be 14 feet lower, with the reduction in height benefiting the views from the cooperative apartment building to the north at 14 South Broadway. The new building would be fully fire proof and its interior design and access would meet senior housing design standards and ADA requirements. The new building would be fully integrated into the design of the balance of the development, including connections to below grade space. The design of the new building would be similar to the original architecture of the main building before it was compromised with additions, siding etc. See Exhibits 20 and 21 which show the proposed design for the replacement building and the height reduction when compared to the existing main building. Note also that this FEIS proposes assisted living buildings with pitched roofs. Flat roof buildings could be provided, as shown in Exhibits 31-34. This approach would reduce the building height by approximately six feet.

1-10

Introduction and Description of Plan Changes

(A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)

Both the DEIS plan and the FEIS plan included 121 units and 168 beds. In both the DEIS and the FEIS plans, the common area includes a card room, bistro, resident lounge, barber/beauty shop, childrens play area, art studio, wellness center and restaurant. However, in the FEIS plan service areas and most of the parking are below grade. The applicant w ill apply for State approvals, including an Enriched H ousing License. A s noted, the proposed development w ill include 81 assisted living and 40 memory care units. It w ill not include independent living for seniors. There w ill be nurses w ho w ill w ork on-site at all times (24 hours per day/ seven days a w eek). In addition, Certified N ursing A ssistants (CN A s) w ill provide assistance w ith A DLs (activities of daily living), w hich include bathing, dressing, grooming, and escorting a resident. There w ill be at least one manager on the site at all times. The staff w ill w ork three basic shifts per day: 7am to 3pm; 3pm to 11pm; and 11pm to 7am for most employees. The applicant w ill w ork w ith the Village administration to adjust the 3pm shift change time w ith regard to school dismissal if deemed necessary. Three meals per day w ill be served in various dining venues. Indoor facilities w ill include barber/ beauty shop, card room, living room, lounge/ library, art studio, fitness room and w ellness center. Outdoor areas w ill include benches and w alking paths. The memory care building w ill be fully secured. While the facility w ill provide all of the daily needs of its residents, the applicant w ill schedule w eekly van trips to dow ntow n Irvington and other destinations for lunch, shopping and activities, w hich w ill support area businesses.

1.5

The FEIS Zoning Proposal

As in the DEIS, the proposed zoning has been drafted so that the proposed development could proceed without any variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Although the final zoning language will be refined by the Village Attorney and the Village Board of Trustees, the draft zoning in this FEIS still calls for Assisted Living Residences as a Special Permit Use, with the Planning Board having approval authority. The zoning language in the applicants draft still includes a description of the purposes of the assisted living provision and specific qualifying criteria for an MF site: (1) The site must have frontage on Route 9/Broadway; (2) The site must be within 1,500 feet of Main Street. Lot and bulk controls have been modified in the current draft to correspond to the FEIS plan. The off street parking requirement, at 0.4 spaces per unit, has been increase from 0.3 in the originally proposed draft. Additional language relating to the minimum amount of indoor and outdoor amenities has been added to the FEIS draft, as requested by the Village planning consultant. The proposed zoning is included is provided as the final pages of this chapter.

1-11

Introduction and Description of Plan Changes

(A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)

1.6

Response to Planning Board Review Comments

As Lead Agency for environmental review of this proposal under SEQRA, the Planning Board is required to ...weigh and balance relevant environmental impacts with social, economic, and other considerations. (6 NYCRR 617.11(d)(2)). The purpose of the DEIS and the FEIS is to provide the Planning Board with the necessary information for us to undertake that task. With respect to social, economic, and other considerations, the Board recognizes that there are a number of benefits to the proposed plan and zoning amendments as set forth in the FEIS. Those benefits include the following: 1. The subject property, which is currently tax exempt, would be taken off the exempt list and placed on the tax roll. This in turn would generate tax revenue to both the Village and the school district. In particular, the Planning Board notes note that the tax revenues for the school district would come with no impact whatsoever on the schools themselves in that there will be no additional school children generated by this assisted living proposal. Therefore, not only will there not be any detrimental impact on the schools, the impacts will be positive. 2. In addition to the positive impacts for the school district, the proposal will also have a positive fiscal impact on local businesses. The project is located within walking distance to the Villages business district. This will provide an opportunity for the residents of the facility, their guests, and the staff of the facility to shop in the business district, which not only provides direct revenue to those businesses but also generates sales tax revenue. 3. The record established in the DEIS and the FEIS establishes that the foregoing fiscal benefits are not accompanied by a number of other impacts, particularly traffic, which would be associated with other uses permitted in the MF zoning district. Those other uses, which include multi-family housing, offices, churches, and schools, would all generate significantly more traffic than the proposed assisted living facility, which is considered to be a low traffic-generating use. It is understood that some form(s) of mitigation will have to be devised to address specific turning movements at the site entrance during peak periods. Any limited traffic impacts which might result from the proposal can be mitigated as set forth in the DEIS and the FEIS. 4. The record also establishes that there are social benefits to the proposed project. These benefits include the ability of Irvingtons seniors to remain in the Village, close to their families. It also provides an opportunity for younger families living in the Village to locate their parents in the Village. We note that 3.2 of the Villages Comprehensive Plan addresses changes to local land use regulations so that new houses and roads either mesh with the established settlement character or provide a benefit to the community, such as permanently preserved open space or affordable or senior housing. This proposed project will provide senior housing with an affordable component pursuant to the Westchester County Industrial Development Agency Regulations. While there are a number of benefits to the proposed project, as described above, there will also be some environmental impacts that are not mitigated by design. The Planning Boards task as Lead Agency, as set forth in the SEQRA Regulations, is to ensure that any potential 1-12 Introduction and Description of Plan Changes (A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)

environmental impacts are mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. One such impact resulting from the project will be the location of an emergency access drive within the Croton Aqueduct buffer. This driveway is provided for health and safety reasons and will be mitigated by screening and the existing wall that separates the site from the aqueduct trail. The driveway will be at ground level with minimal, if any, visual impacts. During the construction process, there will be a significant number of truck trips with respect to removing material from the site. That impact will be mitigated by a flag man located at the intersection of the project driveway and South Broadway and is only expected to occur intermittently for a period of approximately four months. Concerns have been expressed over the visual impact of the project. As indicated in Section 1.4 of this FEIS, which describes the plan revisions made as part of this FEIS, the applicant has mitigated these impacts by design. The plan proposed in the FEIS mitigates visual impacts by, among other things, eliminating the significant building previously proposed along Broadway, locating significant amenity space at a lower level not visible from the street, and breaking up the massing of the building. The removal of the former estate building further addresses visual impacts, by reducing building heights across from 14 South Broadway and along the Aqueduct. Moreover, the plan also preserves several of the oldest and tallest trees on the edges of the site and a large landmark sugar maple tree in the Plans central open space area. The project will result in an increase in impervious surface. This will be mitigated by a comprehensive stormwater management system and program, which will result in post construction runoff being no greater than the existing conditions. In addition, the proposal provides for the removal of a significant number of trees on the property. This removal is necessitated by the proposed construction but will be mitigated by a substantial landscaping program to be undertaken by the applicant, both on site and off site. In order to fulfill its mandate under SEQRA as Lead Agency, the Planning Board requested the applicant to provide an analysis of what could be developed on the site under the current zoning. The Planning Board made this request to enable it to compare the existing zoning with the proposed new special permit use requested by the applicant. Initially, it is important to note that the SEQRA Regulations require an applicant to look at a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposal that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the projects sponsor. Accordingly, the Planning Boards request to the applicant to analyze existing permitted uses in the MF zone, while the applicant is seeking an assisted living facility, goes beyond what SEQRA provides. Nevertheless, the applicant has responded to the request and has provided an analysis of various alternative developments that could take place on the subject property under current zoning. There has been discussion regarding the concept that, in order for the applicant to obtain the requested zoning amendments, it must demonstrate that the proposed use is better than the existing uses permitted in the MF zoning district. The determination as to what uses are to be permitted in any particular zone is solely within the jurisdiction of the Village Board of Trustees. The Planning Boards role as the SEQRA Lead Agency is to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposal and determine whether potential adverse impacts can be appropriately 1-13 Introduction and Description of Plan Changes (A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)

mitigated. It is up to the Village Board of Trustees to determine whether or not to add assisted living facilities as a special permit use within the MF zoning district. Requiring the applicant to demonstrate that its proposed use is better than any of the existing uses would lead to the illogical and unsupportable conclusion that each zoning district should be limited to the best use for that district. That is simply not the case. Zoning ordinances are historically designed to permit a mix of uses within any one district to, among other things, promote vitality and economic viability within the community. As noted above, the applicant, despite not being required to do so, has provided an analysis of various development scenarios that could take place under the current MF zoning regulations. Because the applicant is requesting the establishment of assisted living facilities as a special permit use in the MF zoning district, the Planning Board requested that the applicant provide an analysis of what could be developed in the MF zone, utilizing the special permit standards already established for that zone. As the applicant has stated, one of the bases for requesting bulk and area requirements different from those which already exist is the fact that the bulk and area requirements for all of the special permit uses currently allowed in the MF zoning district are identical, without regard to the special nature of each use. The applicant has pointed out that, regardless of the use, the current special permit regulations for the MF zone provide for 100 foot setbacks on all sides and a maximum coverage of 15%. As part of this FEIS, the applicant has submitted a schematic layout which shows a building fully compliant with the foregoing special permit standards. See Exhibit 35, Full Compliance Site Plan. The result of the application of those standards is a small building located approximately in the center of the site, limited to approximately 29,190 s.f. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, this building would not meet any of the programmatic needs for an assisted living facility and could not be developed by the applicant. The second comparison plan submitted by the applicant demonstrates a potential school building, a principal permitted use. See Exhibit 36, School Alternative. The current regulations in the MF zone permit a school or a church to be developed with a maximum building coverage of 30% (as opposed to 15% for special permit uses) as well as setbacks equal to the building height (as opposed to 100 feet for special permit uses). Accordingly, the plan submitted by the applicant for a school provides for a building coverage of 30% and side yard setbacks of 35 feet (the maximum permissible height). This plan, like the fully compliant special permit plan, adheres to the 125 foot Broadway buffer and the 50 foot Croton Aqueduct buffer. This plan shows a significant increase in coverage over the assisted living facility proposed by the applicant, together with significantly smaller side yard setbacks. We also note that the traffic impacts associated with a school would be significantly worse than those of the proposed assisted living facility. The daily activity, as well as special events at any school, will far exceed the similar potential impacts of the proposed assisted living facility. The existing regulations hamper the viability of constructing a church due to the requirement to construct at grade parking not less than 100 feet to any property line. This forces the center of the property to be used for parking and forces any building to the perimeter of the site. Finally, the applicant has prepared a plan that follows the multi-family design standards with respect to maximum coverage of 15%, side yards of 50 feet, a rear yard defined by the required 1-14 Introduction and Description of Plan Changes (A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)

Aqueduct buffer of 50 feet and a front yard as defined by the Broadway buffer of 125 feet. See Exhibit 37, Assisted Living Alternative. The resulting design proposes a 60,700 square foot (twice the allowable coverage of 30,350 s.f.) in a two story structure not more than 35 feet in height. Once the necessary space is allocated for amenities, circulation and other required common space, the number of residential units would be limited to no more than 25. Parking and site circulation for operations and emergency purposes as well as parking have been designed to meet the required setbacks. The resulting design forces the development to the center of the property as well as significant massing along the Broadway and northern property lines. It has been suggested by both the applicant and Village staff that the proposed assisted living facility is most akin to a multi-family development. While the proposed size of the assisted living facility is significantly greater than that of a multi-family dwelling project, the record reflects that a significant percentage of the space in the assisted living facility is amenity space and that, accordingly, approximately half of the floor area of the assisted living facility is empty, i.e., used by the residents of the assisted living facility. The applicant argues that the bulk and area requirements for a multi-family project do not accurately reflect the nature of the assisted living use or the programmatic needs of such a use and that, therefore, specific bulk and area requirements are appropriate and necessary for a viable assisted living project. The notion of utilizing the multi-family bulk and area requirements for the assisted living facility raises the issue of the consistency of such a project with the character of the neighborhood. Toward that end, The Planning Board looked at the adjacent development at 14 South Broadway. That property is already developed with a multi-family community. The FEE property should be a transition area between the medium density to the south and the higher density areas to the north. In point of fact, Continuum developments F.A.R is significantly less than that of 14 South Broadway, which results in the Continuum proposal acting as a transition in density. In addition, it is important to understand that one of the functions of F.A.R., in limiting the potential physical size of a project, is also to limit impacts resulting from that size. In other words, F.A.R. is not designed solely to limit the physical size of a project. In a residential project, such as this, F.A.R. would also impact on the number of dwelling units, the number of residents, the amount of traffic generated by the use, impacts on schools, etc. For a traditional multi-family development, these would be appropriate factors. However, F.A.R. is not necessarily an appropriate measure for an assisted living facility, in which the residents are quite elderly, drive very little, and have no impacts whatsoever on schools. In an assisted living facility, a significant amount of the F.A.R. is used for amenity and related space which has no external impacts. On the other hand, multi-family developments, such as Irvington Estates utilize almost all of that space for actual living purposes, with the concomitant impacts. The proposed assisted living facility is less dense than 14 South Broadway and, accordingly, is consistent with the character of this portion of South Broadway. In addition, the architecture of the proposed assisted living facility is consistent with the character and history of the site. The siting of the building, the retention of certain trees, the relative grade of the site and the lower areas of the adjacent properties all serve to reduce visual impacts.

1-15

Introduction and Description of Plan Changes

(A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)

1.7

Summary of FEIS Responses to Major Issues

The follow ing section provides a summary of the major issues raised in the DEIS and the responses to these major issues in terms of plan changes or the provision of additional information on potential impacts and mitigation. Planning and Zoning A number of comments raised issues about the applicants proposed zoning amendment, w hich w ould permit assisted living in the M F zoning district as a Special Permit use. The FEIS responses stated that the process being utilized by the Village to review the proposed amendment, w hich w ould be a Village Board of Trustees action w ith a recommendation from the Planning Board, is a common and w ell-accepted approach, and is not a technique for bypassing a request for variances from the Zoning Board of A ppeals. A zoning amendment is a legislative process that is a discretionary action by the Village Board, w hich is different from, and more rigorous than, a variance request. Prior to considering the amendment, the SEQRA review process needs to be completed by the Planning Board, w ith the Village Board then informed about all of the environmental issues related to the proposed zoning amendment. Questions w ere raised as to w hy the proposed zoning called for frontage on Route 9 and proximity to dow ntow n Irvington. The applicant proposed these Special Permit criteria given the availability of Bee Line bus service on South Broadw ay, and the proximity of shops and restaurants on M ain Street that w ould serve assisted living residents, families and w orkers. The Village Board could delete these conditions, if it so chooses, and allow assisted living as a Special Permit use in the three other areas of the Village w here M F zoning exists. The Village Planning consultant made a number of suggestions w ith regard to the applicants proposed zoning text, including requirements for State approval and standards for common open space and amenity space. These changes have been made to the proposed zoning that is included in this FEIS. The proposed zoning also increases the buffer area requirements back to the existing regulations, i.e., 50 feet from the A queduct and 125 feet from South Broadw ay, but w ith exceptions proposed for roadw ays, retaining w alls and parking. In addition, the required amount of off-street parking w as increased from 0.3 to 0.4 spaces per unit, w hich is consistent w ith industry standards and the parking provided for other assisted living facilities in the area. A number of comments raised issues w ith regard to the projects consistency w ith the Village Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not address assisted living specifically, but it does include references to senior housing. With regard to the issue of Comprehensive Plan consistency, the Village A ttorney commented that on page 27 of the Plan, the document indentifies the subject site and states that zoning for this site should be consistent w ith public goals that benefit the community, such as senior housing. The Comprehensive Plan is alw ays subject to review and modification by the Village as deemed appropriate. Slavish adherence to an almost 10 year old Comprehensive Plan provides no opportunity for the municipality to recognize and deal w ith changing factors, such as demographics and the aging of our population. But beyond this concern, a number of comments w ere raised w ith regard to the proposed developments consistency w ith Comprehensive Plan objectives relating to building size, mass and its effects on South Broadw ay and the Old Croton A queduct. A s previously noted, the applicants FEIS plan addresses these concerns by increasing setbacks, redesigning the South Broadw ay frontage, and placing approximately 25% of the program space and most of the off street parking below grade. The long, three story assisted living building along South Broadw ay, 1-16 Introduction and Description of Plan Changes (A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)

as show n in the DEIS Plan, has been removed in the FEIS plan. The view along South Broadw ay now includes a w indow into the sites central open space area. See Exhibit 22, Open Space A rea. The FEIS responses further state the applicants opinion that assisted living on the subject site w ould provide a transition from low er density uses to the south of the site to the adjacent multifamily cooperative development to the immediate north and to the Village M ain Street commercial area just beyond those apartments. Traffic. A revised traffic study is included in the appendix of the FEIS. It addresses all the technical comments raised by the Village traffic consultant, including adjustments to the projected number of trips generated by the proposed development based on 168 beds as opposed to 121 units. The results of the traffic study clearly demonstrate that all study area intersections w ill operate at acceptable levels of service in the peak A M , PM and Saturday hours. The total increase in Route 9 traffic as a result of the development w ill amount to a 2% increase. The trip generation rates in the traffic study account for employees, service vehicles and visitors. A lthough the traffic study w as based on standard Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) methodologies, the comments and responses in the DEIS addressed many non-technical issues and community concerns about traffic and safety on Route 9 and local roads in the vicinity of the subject site, including how shift changes w ould affect traffic conditions. For example, the FEIS indicates that left turns into and out of the site w ould not present a traffic problem, given the w idth of the roadw ay and the w idening of the site drivew ay. In order for unsignalized intersections to meet Traffic Signal Warrants, the side road or drivew ay exiting volumes (minor street volumes) and major street volumes w ould have to meet traffic volume w arrants. Typically, eight-hour w arrants w ould have to be met and in some conditions four-hour w arrants or peak hour w arrants could w arrant a traffic signal. The follow ing Table show s the required Traffic Signal Warrants. Eight H our Warrants Volumes Warrant 1 Condition A M ajor Street M inor Street 350 150 M ajor Street 800 Total Intersection Volume 650 Warrant 1 Condition B M ajor Street M inor Street 525 53 M inor Street 60 M inor Street 100

Four H our Warrants Volumes Peak H our Warrants Volumes

Based on the traffic volume projections in the Traffic Impact Study, the drivew ay exiting volume (minor street volume) w ould be 10 exiting vehicles during the Weekday Peak A M H ighw ay H our and 20 exiting vehicles during the Weekday Peak PM H ighw ay H our. Based on the above Traffic Signal Criteria, the drivew ay volume (minor street volume) w ould not meet Traffic Signal Warrants. In addition, based on the projected operation of the drivew ay (Level of Service D or better), a traffic signal w ould not be needed. The FEIS notes that off peak traffic from shift changes w ould be less than traffic during peak hours. Since peak hour traffic results in acceptable levels of service, off peak traffic w ould also be acceptable.

1-17

Introduction and Description of Plan Changes

(A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)

H ow ever, the local resident issue of concern w as the midday shift change that w ould occur at approximately the same time as afternoon school dismissal. The number of employees from the assisted living development w orking on a 7am to 3pm shift w ould likely be about 44 persons, some of w hom w ould use bus or train service, w hile others w ould drive. The volume of traffic from these employees w ould not affect the levels of service on the intersections in the study area. Survey of school bus activity along U.S. Route 9 in the vicinity of the site w as conducted during the school hours of 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM . That survey indicates that school buses are spread out over this time period due to the staggering of pick-up times of the area schools (Dow s Lane Elementary School, M ain Street School, Irvington M iddle School and Irvington H igh School). Based on that survey, during any 15 minute period, there w ere on average 15 school buses passing this site. A s is typical w ith school bus activity, traffic stops in both directions allow ing safe pick-up/ drop-off of children. In addition, the distribution of traffic during a shift change w ill also be distributed over this time period since all employees do not arrive and depart at the same time. It is anticipated that on average there w ill be a total of 14 vehicles entering or exiting the site during any 15 minute period during this time period based on survey of a similar facility (A tria on the H udson, Ossining, N ew York). Based on the observed school bus distribution patterns and anticipated employee distribution patterns, the additional Continuum traffic w ill have a minimal impact on operating conditions during this period. Similar school bus operations w ill continue under existing and future conditions. A nother issue w as the amount of off-street parking proposed for staff and visitors. The FEIS responses indicate that the 50 parking spaces that are provided meet industry standards for assisted living communities and are consistent w ith the parking provided at comparable assisted living developments in nearby communities. It is noted that there is a bus stop on Broadw ay, adjacent to the property, further facilitating the ability of the employees to utilize public transportation. Parking during project construction w as also raised as an issue. The applicant clarified in the FEIS that the maximum number of w orkers on the site w ould be betw een 30 and 50. Temporary parking for construction w orkers w ould occur on-site. The applicant notes in the FEIS that the project w ould result in 175 total jobs; how ever, that estimate includes material delivery suppliers, off-site fabricators and many others, as w ell as the on-site construction w orkers. A dditionally, the applicant responded in the FEIS that a flagman w ould be posted on Route 9 to facilitate traffic flow during construction. A dditional issues w ere raised regarding how the site w ould accommodate deliveries and how the internal road system addresses fire truck access requirements. With regard to deliveries, the responses in the FEIS note that the loading area has been relocated from the DEIS plans more visible location near the South Broadw ay access drive, to the rear of the site, w here in the FEIS the loading area is fully enclosed w ithin the building. Deliveries w ould be scheduled for non peak hours. Deliveries w ould also be precluded from mid day (2pm to 4pm), w hen school dismissal occurs, With regard to fire access, the FEIS includes a plan show ing appropriate road w idths and turning radii for fire truck access, including circulation around the entire site. Utilities and Stormwater M anagement. Comments on w ater supply and sanitary sew erage w ere primarily made by the Village Engineer and are addressed w ith the engineering plans submitted as part of the FEIS. A lthough detailed plans have been provided sufficient for a SEQRA review , additional detail w ould be forthcoming 1-18 Introduction and Description of Plan Changes (A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)

as part of a subsequent site plan review of the proposed development. A n issue w as raised by the County w ith regard to the increase in sew er flow s and the effects on the Joint Wastew ater Treatment Plant in Yonkers. It noted that as a matter of County DEF policy, it is recommended the measures be taken to offset the projects increased flow , presumably through reductions in inflow / infiltration, at a 3:1 ratio. This specific mitigation measure w ill be determined as part of the site plan approval process in conformity w ith the Village and Westchester County Inflow and Infiltration Program objectives. Stormw ater issues raised by the Village engineer w ere also addressed in the FEIS by reference to the detailed plans and the Stormw ater Pollution Prevention Plan contained in the FEIS appendix. A comment w as presented regarding runoff problems that currently exist to the immediate south of the subject site. The FEIS notes that the current 4.63 acre site has 1.06 acres of impervious surface. Stormw ater from this area is currently undetained and untreated. Under proposed conditions, there w ill be an increase of 1.3 acres of impervious area. The total of 2.35 impervious acres w ill be treated w ith green infrastructure measures, and detained in underground pipes prior to being released at a controlled rate of flow . The portion of the site that drains to the south w as analyzed as a separate sub-basin (4.11 acres of the 10.28 acre w atershed). Under proposed conditions this sub-basin is reduced to 2.6 acres of w hich only .26 acres is impervious. This results in a reduction of 40% of the peak runoff and a reduction of 51% of the volume in a 1 year storm event. With regard to the green infrastructure, the FEIS notes that this includes green roofs, porous pavement, stormw ater planters, hydrodynamic separators and underground detention pipes. Flora and Fauna. There w ere a number of comments on tree removal. The Tree Inventory and Recommendations indicates 129 trees to be removed. Of the 129 trees to be removed, 47 are in poor condition or w orse and are unlikely to survive in the near term. The trees removed w ill be replaced w ith 145 new evergreen and deciduous trees as show n on Exhibit 3, Conceptual Landscape Plan. A s previously noted, the FEIS plan has a design that w ill implement pre and post construction measures in an effort to save additional trees in critical locations, including the trees inside the existing loop road and the large silver maple tree behind the main building. The large silver maple is a landmark feature in the FEIS plans central open space area. With the new design, this important tree w ill be visible from the South Broadw ay access road, w here the plan provides an open space w indow into the proposed development. The large silver maple tree (tree 101 on the survey) is one of many existing trees to remain on site. This tree is one of 6 trees w hich w ill be evaluated during detailed construction design for practical measures that can be utilized to enhance their survivability. In the FEIS the applicant proposed tw o mitigation measures to address the trees that w ill be removed as part of the development. The first is the landscaping plan that is presented in the FEIS, w hich includes trees and shrubs w ithin the development and along its edges. Special landscaping attention is provided to the common property line w ith the Irvington Estates cooperative development, w here the applicant and the co-op board are w orking together on plan details. A dditional evergreen plantings have been added to the Old Croton A queduct and N orth Broadw ay setback areas, w hich have been increased in depth in the FEIS plan. A second mitigation measure noted in the FEIS (see response to comment 3.2.23 and Exhibit 3) is the applicants proposal for an off-site tree planting program that it w ould develop w ith the Village administration. 1-19 Introduction and Description of Plan Changes (A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)

The DEIS and the FEIS also describe a proposed tree preservation plan, w hich w ould be designed to save as many trees as possible during the construction process. The Tree Inventory and Recommendations indicates 129 trees to be removed. This includes 6 trees (numbers 51, 101, 121, 124, 137, and 150) that are to be evaluated during detailed construction design for practical measures that can be utilized to enhance their survivability. The tree preservation plan w ould be designed to protect and preserve all those trees not designated for removal. It is possible that during the final design process opportunities may develop to preserve some of the trees that are currently designated for removal. The plan w ill be further detailed as part of the construction documentation w hen the project advances to that stage. The Irvington Environmental Conservation Board raised an issue regarding on-site habitat given the sites proximity to the Barney Brook, the A queduct and migratory birds in the sites environs. The projects environmental specialists response in the FEIS described his on-site surveys and the connectivity betw een this site and surrounding areas. The sites separation from the Barney Brook, the lack of w etlands and w ater features and other factors w ere cited by the applicants environmental consultant as a basis for the limited w ildlife activity that actually occurs on the site. Economics There w ere a number of questions raised and comments responded to in the FEIS, focusing on projected tax revenues, costs for Village services, monthly charges, and the market for assisted housing in Irvington, Projected tax revenues for purposes of the DEIS w ere based on 2010 data from seven other assisted living developments in Westchester. The result w as an estimated $5,000 in tax revenues per unit. With 121 units, the total real estate tax for all taxing jurisdictions w as over $600,000 per year. Of this amount, nearly 60%, or $353,000 w ould go the Irvington School District, and over 27% or $164,000 w ould go to the Village, annually. In response to comments, the applicant contacted the Greenburgh tax assessor w ho indicated that an assessment w ould be made at a later stage in the process. Other comments raised issues regarding the permanence of the tax revenues and possible certiorari proceedings that could be pursued to reduce taxes. The applicants response in the FEIS indicated that the applicant w ould be w illing to enter into a PILOT agreement w ith the Westchester County Industrial A gency and the Village to ensure that taxes based on fair value are paid over 15 years. Regardless of the eventual assessment, the development w ill result in a significant tax surplus. There w ill be no school age children, and no direct costs to the school district. Even if some of the proposed units are occupied by Village residents w ho sell their present homes to families w ith school age children, the likelihood is great that those seniors w ould be moving in any event to another assisted living facility or other accommodation, selling their Irvington house to a young family. In terms of Village costs to provide services to the development, the Village planning consultant called for an analysis of potential costs to serve the development using standard methodologies. In response, the follow ing modified per capita cost analysis w as undertaken in the FEIS for the 168 future residents. Of the 2012 Village General Fund budget of approximately $15,000,000, $6.3 million is allocated to community service lines, including police protection, fire, safety, parks, recreation, library, seniors, refuse collection and recycling. For purposes of the per capita analysis it is assumed that service w ould increase in response to this or any development. 1-20 Introduction and Description of Plan Changes (A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)

The 168 persons in the assisted living project w ould represent about 2.5% of the Village population. If this w ere not an assisted living facility for older seniors and those w ho need memory care, and if the development did not include all of the amenities for its residents as it does, a per capita cost analysis w ould assume that each resident w ould cost the Village a proportionate share of the overall service costs or 2.5% for the entire development. M ultiplying 2.5% by $6.3 million gives a total per capita cost of $940 per person. H ow ever, the proposed development w ill take care of many of the services otherw ise provided Village on-site w ith no cost to the Village. For example, there w ill be a private carter for garbage collection. Similarly, snow plow ing w ill be done by private contractors. Residents w ill likely use the on-site library, recreation facilities and other on-site amenities more so than using the Village facilities and services. Based on input from the Villages planning consultant, a conservative percentage of assumed utilization w as assigned to each service line including 100% for police, fire, safety and senior services. The result of this conservative analysis results in an estimated service cost of approximately $100,000 per year. The $65,000 balance w ould be available to cover any additional Village administrative costs to serve the development. Details are provided in the FEIS as response to comment 3.11.4. The Irvington School District w ould receive significant tax revenues from the proposed development, estimated to be $353,000 per year. Comments on the DEIS also w ere raised on the projected rents and how they compare w ith other nearby facilities. In the FEIS the applicant identifies the projects estimated monthly cost for assisted living ranging from $3,000 for a shared assisted living unit to $7,500 per month for a tw obedroom unit, and $5,500 for a shared unit to $7,000 for a memory care unit at the proposed development. These costs are slightly low er than the monthly costs at the A tria in Ossining, the A tria in Briarcliff M anor and the Kensington in White Plains. The rents for assisted living at the Woodlands in A rdsley range from $5,800 to $6,200 for a studio unit, from $6,400 to $6,900 for a one-bedroom unit, $7,900 for a tw o-bedroom unit, and $8,595 for a studio memory care unit. A question w as raised about potential IDA financing and rents. A lthough IDA financing w ill be pursued, there w ould be no impacts on rents. IDA financing w ould, how ever, require that 20% of the units be set aside for individuals at or below 50% of Westchesters median income. Finally, several comments focused on the market for assisted living in Irvington. The FEIS provides information from the applicants market analysis w hich documents the need for assisted living to serve the rapidly grow ing elderly population in the County. It also responds to question about other assisted living projects in the County, including the 90 unit project recently proposed on Route 119 in the Tow n of Greenburgh. The M arket Study that is summarized in the FEIS responses indicates that there are over 10,000 net qualified seniors in the market area, of w hich about 10% are considered as the potential that the Irvington assisted living development could be expected to draw from. Community Facilities and Emergency Services The most significant community facility issue regarding the proposed development is the provision of emergency services provided by the Irvington Volunteer Fire Department (IVA C). A number of comments and concerns w ere raised, responses w ere provided and a proposed mitigation program w as set forth in the FEIS.

1-21

Introduction and Description of Plan Changes

(A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)

It is recognized that IVA C performs an essential community service to the Village of Irvington. Like many volunteer organizations, it has a manpow er problem w ith an insufficient number of trained EM Ts and ambulance drivers. Unlike other services, IVA C w ill not receive revenues from the Village from the taxes generated by the proposed development. Emergency service calls at the assisted living facility w ill be made by the professional staff that is on duty at the time of the incident. During all shifts, there w ill be an RN or LPN on site. A dditional staff w ill includes Certified N ursing A ssistants, and a full time manager. If it is an emergency that requires a trip to the hospital, a 911 call w ill be made by the staff. This is significantly different than an independent living facility, w here the considerably younger seniors often make 911 calls themselves. But beyond that distinction, the applicant w ill also contract w ith a private ambulance service for routine doctor visits and non emergency situations, thus further avoiding unnecessary IVA C and 911 calls. IVA C w ill receive the calls, estimated by the applicant at 6 to 10 per month for the assisted living facility. Based on current procedures, 911 calls are responded to by the Police Department, since there is going to be a nurse on staff at all times, this could potentially change. They w ill be accompanied to the site by the Irvington Police. IVA C w ill be reimbursed for the call through the persons insurance. The estimated number of ambulance calls per month has been established by comparing the actual number of calls per month from the A tria Briarcliff M anor. A ccording to information provided by the Briarcliff M anor Fire Chief, M ichael King, the A tria Briarcliff M anor has an average of 11.58 calls per month. A s per M r. King many of the calls occurred during the evening and w eekends, w hen A tria Briarcliff is not staffed by an RN or an LPN . In addition, w e feel that many of these calls w ere non-emergent and could have been serviced by a private ambulance service. The A tria Briarcliff M anor has 200 licensed beds and does not have a nurse on site 24 hours/ day. The proposed Continuum Living at Irvington w ill have 168 beds and a nurse w ill be on site at all times. A s such, the applicant anticipated an average of 6 to 10 calls per month from the proposed project. In order to mitigate the impacts of the additional service calls, the applicant has proposed the follow ing program: 1) It w ill employ a nurse on site at all times (24 hours per day, 7 days per w eek) in an effort to directly reduce the number of unnecessary 911 calls. 2) It w ill make a substantial monetary contribution of $32,000 annually to be used to employ a full time EM T at IVA C. Based on an ongoing dialogue w ith A l Kim, Director of Stellaris, an EM T in Westchester County makes approximately $15/ hr (or $31,200 annually). This full time position w ill be employed for 40 hours per w eek or 160 hours per month. Based on this calculation, If the highest end of the estimate of 911 calls is assumed (10 calls per month) and the average call takes a total of 5 hours of time, the net effect w ould be 50 hours of EM T time per month to attend to calls from the proposed facility. The balance (160 hours per month, less 50 hours per month attending to Continuum) leaves 110 hours per month of time that the EM T can dedicate to other calls at IVA C. Based on this calculation, this addition to IVA C far exceeds the impact of the calls projected at the proposed assisted living facility and w ould be of benefit to the Village. 3) It w ill cater events at IVA C and promote and sponsor annual fundraisers as w ell.

1-22

Introduction and Description of Plan Changes

(A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)

Alternatives. The Proposed A ction in this FEIS calls for a plan that replaces the main building on the site. For comparison purposes, the FEIS also includes the alternative of adaptively re-using the main building, w hich w as proposed in the DEIS plan. There w ere a number of questions on the alternatives presented in the DEIS, including A lternative 7A , w hich is the DEIS alternative that called for the demolition of the main building on the site, replacing it w ith a similarly designed, but smaller building on the same portion of the property, i.e., across from the adjacent cooperative apartments. The responses to comments in the FEIS noted that, in the applicants opinion, the main building has been altered to an extent that it is not considered to be eligible for the N ational Register. Portions of the building have been demolished; in other areas, building additions have been made. The exterior has been altered w ith vinyl cladding. M oreover, the building has fire code and accessibility issues that w ould need to be addressed. Its interior layout and room configuration are additional issues in a potential reuse. If the existing main building w ere demolished, its replacement building w ould be located on the same portion of the site. It w ould have a very similar architectural design to the existing building; how ever, it w ould be 41 feet in height as opposed to the 55 foot existing main building. The new buildings basement w ould connect w ith the below grade facilities proposed on the balance of the site, fully integrating this building w ith the other new buildings and their common facilities. The replacement building w ould have eight assisted living units in its upper floors, w hich w ould enable the assisted living building proposed along the A queduct to be reduced in height from three stories to tw o stories, w hich is the same height as the memory care building. The alternative plan w ith adaptive re-use of the main building w ould not provide this reduction in height along the A queduct since it w ould not contain any assisted living units.

1-23

Introduction and Description of Plan Changes

(A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)

VILLAGE OF IRVINGTON Local Law No. ___ For the Year 2012 A local law to amend Chapter 224 of the Village of Irvington Code with respect to permitted uses within the Multifamily Residence (MF) District. Section 1. Amend Section 224-17(E) by adding a new subsection, to be designated as Section 224-17(E)(1)(f) as follows: 224-17(E)(1)(f) Assisted Living Residences, subject to the following requirements, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Chapter: [1] Purpose. This use is established for the purpose of furthering the goals of the Irvington Comprehensive Plan by permitting the establishment of a specialized, for-profit assisted living development for the elderly. In such development, accommodation can be made for the range of needs of those elderly who neither want nor need placement in a hospital or nursing home. Assisted living communities shall be designed to achieve compatibility with their surroundings and to encourage orderly and well planned development. Assisted living developments shall be of a scale and location that will make it feasible to construct a comprehensive package of supporting utilities, services, and facilities, so as to achieve a development which is environmentally, physically, visually, and economically sound. Certain accessory uses that are requisite, desirable, and convenient for assisted living for the elderly will also be allowed. Permitted Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted in conjunction with an assisted living residence: [a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g] Indoor and outdoor recreation and activities for residents and their guests only. Continuing education, crafts and hobbies for residents and their guests only. Living, dining, laundry, security and housekeeping facilities for common use of residents only. Central kitchen for food served in dining areas or distribution to individual dwelling accommodations and units. Dining room for residents and their guests only, with no cash transactions allowed. Medical and dental services for residents only with no cash transactions allowed. Small interior shops for the sale of goods or rendering of personal services (such as hairdresser, etc.) only to residents, with no cash transactions allowed. Off-street parking areas and underground parking facilities.
1-24 Introduction and Description of Plan Changes (A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)

[2]

[h]

[i] [3]

Signs and outdoor lighting.

Eligibility for special permit. In order to qualify for a special permit for an assisted living residence, the following requirements must be met: [a] [b] [c] [d] The site must have frontage on Route 9/Broadway; The site must be within 1,500 feet of Main Street; Twenty-four hour on-site security or building management must be provided; The applicant must be eligible for all necessary state licenses for the operation of an assisted living community.

[4]

Physical Dimensional Requirements. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Chapter, the physical and dimensional requirements for assisted living communities shall be as follows: [a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g] [h] [i] Minimum Lot Area: Minimum Frontage: Minimum Front Yard: Minimum Side Yard: Minimum Rear Yard: Maximum Building Coverage: Maximum Building Height: Minimum Passive Outdoor Recreation Space per resident: Minimum Interior Common Space per resident: 4 acres 400 feet 125 feet 40 feet 50 feet 20 % * 45 feet 50 s.f. 70 s.f.

Notwithstanding the provisions set forth in [c], [d], and [e] above, 224-51 (B) requiring a Broadway buffer of 125 feet, and 224-51(C) requiring a Croton Aqueduct buffer of 50 feet, the following shall be permitted within buffers and setbacks: (i) driveways; (ii) emergency access driveways; (iii) parking spaces; and (iv) retaining walls. * Building coverage shall not include green roofs or other permeable surfaces, including lawn areas. [5] [6] Building Length. No single side of a building may exceed 260 feet in length.

Outer Courts. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this code, outer courts shall be permitted, the dimensions of which shall be subject to Planning Board approval. Off-Street Parking. There shall be not less than 0.4 off-street parking spaces for each assisted living unit therein. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, if the Planning Board, as part of the site plan approval process, determines that less than
1-25 Introduction and Description of Plan Changes (A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)

[7]

the required number of parking spaces will satisfy the intent of this Chapter, because of variations in the time of maximum use or any other reason, the Planning Board may waive the improvement of not more than 25% of the required number of parking spaces. In such case, it must be demonstrated on the site plan that sufficient usable lot area remains for the eventual provision of the total number of required parking spaces. All unimproved parking spaces shall be used and maintained as landscaped grounds until required for parking, and must be improved for parking in accordance with the site plan within six (6) months of written notice if given by the Planning Board to the property owner stating that improvement of all or a portion of the parking spaces is necessary. In making such determination the Planning Board shall take into account any recommendation made by the Village Building Inspector. Section 2. Conflicting Standards. Where the requirements of the Local Law impose a different restriction or requirement than imposed by other sections of the Code of the Village of Irvington, the Village Law of the State of New York or other applicable rules or regulations, the requirements of this Local Law shall prevail. Section 3. Severability. The invalidity of any word, section, clause, paragraph, sentence, part or provision of this local law shall not affect the validity of any other part of this local law that can be given effect without such invalid part or parts. Section 4. Effective Date. This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and filing with the Secretary of State.

1-26

Introduction and Description of Plan Changes

(A s revised 12/ 21/ 12)